Even though it's still 3 years away, the 2008 election is going to be a monumental event.





Even though it's still 3 years away, the 2008 election is going to be a monumental event.
hmmm...most women suffer from chronic 'stand-by-your-man-no-matter-what-he-does' syndrome...a disorder that effects our lives negatively most of the time...don't know why people would hold that against her....
but anyway...2008 should be interesting...
why do some people still have to fight to get the same opportunities that are given to others?
reclusiveness...is a good thing.
the greatest revenge in the world...is success.





Well, consider your own question in terms of California Democrats. The 'stand by your man' syndrome being considered as normal would only apply in the context of a heterosexual marriage, whereas a significant fraction of California Democrats are gay. Women's Lib California Democrats would be upset by Hillary having taken a 'subservient' role to Bill in the first place. Hollywood Democrats, subconsciously at least, probably don't think that Hillary has the physical beauty or the charisma to be in their league (whereas Bill did).Originally Posted by MsTopaz
But perhaps more importantly, Machiavellian California Democratic leaders arguably don't want to see the national Democratic party's focus turned eastward towards NY/NJ/MA. #1 this would mean a lower priority for Californiaesque issues like gay rights and environmentalism, and a swing towards Northeasternesque priorities like national health care and social benefit programs. #2 this would potentially mean that southern states who might tolerate a 'neutral' midwestern democrat candidate in 2008 might object outright to (another) Northeastern democrat candidate, thus handing a win to republicans (again).
Please don't take this the wrong way, but it is an important point for making sense out of this. It is interesting to note that the Democratic party of late, for better or for worse, seems to lack any cohesive thread shared between its supporters, and instead appears to be an ever increasing mosaic of 'special interest groups' i.e. blacks, gays, environmentalists, old money rich, celebrities/glitterati, union workers etc. As a result it is extremely difficult for a future Democratic candidate to please all of these diverse groups at the same time - which by definition is almost impossible to do (example staunch environmentalism is essentially bad for union auto/airline workers). The risk factor of course is that if one or two of these diverse groups does not actively support the future Democratic candidate and effectively abstains from the election in significant numbers, that Democrats will be unable to pull together a majority on election day.
Last edited by Melonie; 06-11-2005 at 08:40 AM.




It would be such a terrible idea to put Hillary on the ballot in 2008. Sometimes I think the democrats just don't want the presidency. What the hell are they thinking??? She can't win. Honestly, I don't think any woman could.
As deeply racist as this country is, I'm guessing Barack Obama would have a better shot at the presidency than Hillary would. (He was born in the U.S., wasn't he?)
"Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]





Hey, even little ol' "conservative" yours truly will actively campaign for Hillary. Why ? She's my senator (eastern New York), and getting her elected to a higher office is the only way to get her out of that Senate seat !
The 2008 election is truly going to be the most important presidential election in the last 60 years. One major reason is that the current US Supreme Court is rapidly aging, such that by 2012 more than half of the sitting justices will need to be 'replaced'. This means that whoever is president after the 2008 election will be able to set the Supreme Court's tone for the next 20 years or so.
Last edited by Melonie; 06-11-2005 at 08:45 AM.
I agree, I don't think Hillary Clinton can win the presidency. First, I've read that she has some of the highest "negative" poll numbers of any national politician. Second, she is the classic northeastern liberal. I've been to Oklahoma, Kansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee. Trust me, being a senator from NEW YORK is derinitely not a positive in these places. I agree with Nicolina, what the hell are the democrats thinking? I really don't think the liberal northeastern establishment understands how deep the genuine dislike for her is in the "red" states.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle




Yes. This strikes fear into the hearts of those of us who are nostalgic for the Warren Court. The pendulum has clearly swung in the opposite direction. I don't think we'll be getting any Warrens anytime soon.Originally Posted by Melonie
"Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
If the democrats thought the turnout among conservatives was high in the last election when gay marriage was an issue, they will be amazed at the turnout when Hillary is on the ballot.
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Obama was born in Hawaii, so he's eligible. About two years after it became a state, I think.Originally Posted by Nicolina
Obama's challenge is unlikely to be race, though. You're right about the persistent racism in U.S. society, but ethnicity is not at all an impediment when the perceived politics are "right." Colin Powell had some of the highest poll numbers among conservatives during his exploratory period, and even today Condi's are damn near off the map.
Obama has the Senator Problem. Aside from the fact that he's just begun his first term, no US Senator has won the presidency since JFK did 45 years ago. Kerry got the closest in recent times (with his comically amateurish campaign totally outfoxed by the sleek Bush machine), but it's well-recognized that governorships are the real launching pads to the presidency.
Hillary has the same problem, but as you note, she drives half the electorate insane with rage even before she opens her mouth. This is Political Poison.
^ TOO is right; Senators make poor Presidential candidates.
Governors are where the political viability lies. It's all about executive positions.
Moreoever, I wouldn't worry much about the SCOTUS appointments; you never know when moderates will get slipped in under the guise of ideologues. Look at Breyer...
Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.
William F. Buckley, Jr.





Well when you get down to serious politics, it's really about who controls the money. In the Clinton camp you've got George Soros willing to throw personal millions into the fray. You've got the 'old money' northeastern liberals, you've got primarily New York based liberal media, you've got NEA and CSEA and the UAW and the Trial Lawyer's Association all firmly in the Clinton camp.I agree with Nicolina, what the hell are the democrats thinking? I really don't think the liberal northeastern establishment understands how deep the genuine dislike for her is in the "red" states.
On the left coast you've got some generous hollywood celebrites yes, but for the most part you've got very vocal but less than lucrative individual environmentalists, gays, women's libbers etc. Thanks to McGain-Feingold, another $20 million dollar contribution to a Democratic 527 group like MoveOn.org from one individual donor like George Soros carries equal weight with the maximum legal individual contribution from 10,000 different individual supporters. This clearly favors the Clinton camp as well. This very issue was a major bone of contention during the last election when the Black Democratic base found their ability to raise campaign funds essentially non-existant due to the individual contribution limits, and found that Black Democratic issues were given next to no attention by Soros' MoveOn.org's media advertising. Whoever has control of the media, either via buying air time a la MoveOn.org or by free coverage a la the NY Times/Washington Post, essentially controls the campaign issues - and Californians are concerned that next time around gay issues, environmental issues etc. will suffer the same fate that Black issues did in the last election.
I agree that Barack Obama might make a very formidable candidate some day ... IF he can survive serious scrutiny regarding his 'priveleged' background, potential islamic terrorist links in the family, his actual political policy record etc. . I'm sure that Teddy Kennedy and/or Robert Byrd will gladly explain that while certain political 'vulnerabilities' can be controlled/minimized/amnesiafied in the context of home state media during a home state election, running for national office is an entirely different story ! John Kerry recently found this out the hard way, and Barack Obama has potentially more damaging skeletons locked in his closet than John did.
Last edited by Melonie; 06-11-2005 at 06:57 PM.
Lieberman is the viable New England Democrat.
I just have to note that both liberals and conservatives on thie board are agreeing. Sen. Clinton is not the right Democratic candidate for 2008. Wow. Cool. I agree. It's not just the so-called red states that would be enervated negatively by her candidacy, but the maroon, purple, and indigo ones, too (which is where the election lies).




Lieberman???? Viable????? Democrat?????
What are you saying, Jay?![]()
"Doc still loved true things, but he knew it was not a general love and it could be a very dangerous mistress." - John Steinbeck, Cannery Row
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]





There are several potential presidential candidates out there that I believe should be considered by the parties. However, I'll bet that the best ones will decline to be nominated due to the crucifictuion they will certainly receive from the press. Or the parties will not think them to be snazzy enough to win the 4-year popularity contest that many of us call the presidential election.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.





Much like Howard Dean before her, there's no way she could win the Iowa Caucus. I'm not even sure she could finish second. Half the people in her own party around these parts can't even stand her.Originally Posted by Destiny
Personally, the thought of our Presidential lineage reading: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton, and perhaps Bush again (Jeb) is too scary to fathom.
Former SCJ now in rehab.





And supposedly America's last monarchy was abolished in 1776 !
Actually this forms a wicked dilemma for Democrats. If they reject Hilary then at least 1/2 of the Democrats' Clinton connected potential financial support is going to back off and wait until the 2012 election, based on the premise that Lieberman or Edwards or any other Democratic 2008 candidate is going to lose the election. With Republicans already running a 2:1 advantage on campaign fundraising, this is probably exactly what will happen. If they embrace Hilary then the Democrats will in fact be able to run a well financed campaign ... which will then place the issue squarely in the laps of indigo/maroon state voters, and very likely create a replay of the Hate Bush response aimed towards Hilary instead. Either way I give odds of Democrats winning the 2008 election as being pretty poor as long as the Republicans can field a candidate who isn't a total fool or burdened by a Chappaquiddick/KKK like past.
You know, I'd never realized that before, but TOO is correct. I wonder if being a senator is perhaps too visible a position? What I mean is perhaps being a senator you make too many groups mad?Originally Posted by The Other Owner
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
I don't think this is gonna help her campaign:
http://RAGE AT AUTHOR AFTER CLAIM: B...CEIVED CHELSEA
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton turned furious and considered legal action after learning bestselling author Ed Klein would allege in a new book: Bill Clinton raped her -- resulting in the conception of daughter Chelsea Clinton!
"[Author] Klein is going to rot in hell for this," a well-placed source close to Hillary said over the weekend.
The explosive charge comes in THE TRUTH ABOUT HILLARY: WHAT SHE KNEW, WHEN SHE KNEW IT, AND HOW FAR SHE'LL GO TO BECOME PRESIDENT -- set for release next week.
[The book ranked #198 on AMAZON.COM's hourly sale chart late Sunday.]
MORE
"I'm going back to my cottage to rape my wife," Klein quotes Bill Clinton as saying during a Bermuda getaway in 1979.
In the morning, the Clintons' room "looked like World War III. There are pillows and busted-up furniture all over the place," an unnamed source tells Klein.
Klein source claims Bill later learned Hillary was pregnant reading about it in the ARKANSAS GAZETTE.
"The fact that his wife didn't tell him that she was pregnant before she told a reporter doesn't seem to phase him one bit, because he says, 'Do you know what night that happened?"
"'No,' I say. 'When?"
"'It was Bermuda,' he says, 'And you were there!'"
Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle
Hillary Clinton lacks appeal not only for many California Democrats, but to a large part of their electoral base across the country. Keep in mind that the infamous Red State/Blue State map is one of the most misleading piece of propaganda used by both parties after the last election. We are, in fact, more of a "purple" country. If Senator Clinton is chosen at the Democratic Convention, I believe much will depend on the Republican's choice. If the GOP is insane enough to try and run Jeb Bush, we will see another hotly contested race, with a close margin. Should they have the intelligence to select McCain, it is a done deal.
My prediction:
Republican Candidate: John McCain
Democratic Candidate: John McCain
Winner: John McCain
You heard it here first.
![]()





and now for something completely THE SAME ...
PS it ain't gonna happen for John McCain - he's pissed off the republican political machine as well as conservative voters, and he's unacceptable to democrat extremist voters i.e. gays, environmentalists etc. That equals a 'third party' spoiler role at best, which would suck votes from any republican candidate and hand the 2008 election to Hilary (which would be OK by me ... gotta get her out of New York somehow !).





Wel, standing in the middle of the road can be hazardous to one's health.
I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.
Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.
NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.
The Republicans are the ones who want Hillary as she is the easiest canditate for them to beat. They can run a campaign based not on the current political issues but all of her and Bill's past marital troubles and a host of other nonsense. The Demo's need to get back to some basics if they are gonna win in 2006...what ever happened to a balanced budget, healthcare costs , social security etc etc
Bookmarks